7.1
MAKING THE CASE FOR PARTNERSHIP
This first chapter of the results addresses the general formation and activity of multi-agency anti-slavery partnerships in each of the five selected regional units of analysis. Before embarking further on discussion around the challenges and interventions that have been experienced and employed by these partnerships in response to modern slavery, it is important to put their objectives, structure and membership into context by explaining exactly what their function is, and how they operate in practice, answering what it actually means for organisations to work ‘in partnership’ on the anti-slavery agenda.
The earlier literature review identified the origins and perceived benefits of partnership working more generally and established how they were formally introduced in the UK in response to child protection issues, through to their current manifestation in the anti-slavery movement. Partnerships have increasingly been put forward as a means of more effectively unifying the skills and resources needed to tackle a range of pervasive social and criminal issues, often in challenging circumstances; such as on the back of national scandal, or in response to public sector austerity; pooling the resources of individual organisations where isolated responses are no longer seen as a viable means able to address problems. The advocacy for a multi-agency approach seeks to establish a sustainable means of collaboration where it is hoped the collective whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
In this regard, modern slavery partnerships are no different, insofar as they tend to convene a unique blend of individuals from a range of statutory and non- statutory organisations to work together to improve victim identification, and support policing investigation and criminal prosecution. Even so, partnerships themselves were found to be far from immune from the effects of sustained austerity, and the call for more money and resources was a fairly consistent theme that emerged across engagement with participants from the five regions studied,
157
and continues to be a pervasive topic I have encountered through wider engagement with the UK’s anti-slavery movement. However, the research found that partnership working was not acknowledged by those engaging in them as merely a sticking plaster in response to austerity, and in only one region (Region Two) did a respondent explicitly acknowledge partnerships as a measure being looked at to fill the void left by public sector budget cuts.
“...We had [a lot of] people, so we did everything ourselves because we have lots of people, so we could always throw people and resources at it. That’s not the case [anymore] so we've become a lot leaner and we're having to rely on partners a lot more. So, I think there's been a bit of a silo mentality from the police and a bit of a silo mentality from other statutory agencies.” 403
In this region, notably a devolved region of the UK, Police were accustomed to a history of relative autonomy, and to having more substantial resources available, in terms of both finance and personnel. There are also hints that reduced resource had contributed to a shift in the mentality of the police. By the respondent’s own admission, the police in the area, and possibly a reflection of police perceptions more generally, had a reputation for being a relatively insular organisation.404 It is
interesting then that Police then were seen as the primary stewards of partnership engagement across the areas studied - even in cases where they did not necessarily chair or coordinate partnership meetings. Though this view could be skewed, given that the majority of research participants came from the police, existing research in this field overwhelmingly identified that police were the most common chairs and coordinators of partnership work across the UK.405 This
interest piques further when we consider that much of the activity, partnership engagement and other action documented and discussed throughout these chapters was often deemed reliant on a few individuals. These ‘special people’,
403 Interview with a Police Detective Sergeant, Region 2, 21st February 2018. 404 Herman Goldstein, Problem Oriented Policing (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990).
405 Gardner, Brickell, and Gren-Jardan, “Collaborating for Freedom: Anti-Slavery Partnerships in
158
their enthusiasm and commitment was identified as an important factor in the furtherance of the modern slavery agenda.406
Given the key role of the police in initiating and driving work forward then, the proliferation of the partnership-based approach to tackling modern slavery initially stems from the UK’s modern slavery strategy, and the Modern Slavery Act 2015 which operationalises many of its concepts. Both reference the need and importance of a ‘victim focused’ response from police. Given the nature and potential impact of exploitation on modern slavery victims then, the need to involve partners, especially local authorities and NGOs with remits on safeguarding and the protection of vulnerable populations, provides a clear first step for forces developing capacity to deal with modern slavery as a discrete and emerging issue.
7.2
ESTABLISHING A PARTNERSHIP
The context and rationale for modern-slavery partnerships is now somewhat clear, but it is important to understand why, how, by whom they were established. While the data from region’s two to five give snapshots of partnership work at various stages of development and maturity, the research conducted in region one (large metropolitan) was longitudinal and partnership work was studied over the course of a two-year period; beginning at the inception of the partnership structure in the area; considered one of the UK’s early adopters at the start of 2015.
Region One’s commitment and engagement to the modern slavery agenda was underpinned by substantial investment by the region’s PCC, and the resulting introduction of a specialist anti-trafficking unit within the police force towards the end of 2014, coinciding with investment into a partnership-based model to be coordinated by a local NGO. The unit was introduced partly in response to the
406 Comments from a representative of a local Community Safety Partnership, Region 1 Focus
159
Modern Slavery Act 2015, and partly due to a large operation in the region within which ~50 potential victims were identified by police.
The operation itself initially began as an investigation of what was believed to be a kidnapping, in some ways foreshadowing the wider problems experienced around the country in recognising modern slavery, and the subsequent push for training in this area. The alleged kidnap was eventually identified as a small element of a larger organised crime operation involving the exploitation of what was believed to be approximately seventy individuals in region one’s force area. Due to the number of victims involved and the scale of the problem that was identified incrementally over a period of months after the initial investigation had begun, a dedicated investigation team was established by the force director of intelligence; then thematic lead for human trafficking, to further identify additional potential victims and intelligence. This eventually resulted in the identification of more than 50 potential victims and a number of additional arrests.407 Fifteen individuals were ultimately referred through the NRM in total
as a result of the operation.
With the benefit of hindsight, the operation could be looked upon as being fundamental in demonstrating the potential value of sustained, joined up and formalised multi-agency work in the region. Due to the scale of the operation and the number of victims involved, an interim reception centre was set up alongside partners from the public and third sectors to provide all those initially identified as possible victims with the immediate support needed. This included the provision of health screenings, using ways of encouraging them to refer through the NRM, and ensuring they were provided with access to services post referral in line with the force’s statutory duty.408 This is something that would not have been
possible without partnership arrangements; and the inter-organisational relationships that come with them, in place.
407 Interview with a police Detective Constable, Region 1, 6th May 2015. 408 Interview with a police Detective Constable, Region 1, 6th May 2015.
160
The successes, lessons learned and skills developed as a result, not only sowed the seeds for the formation of formal multi-agency partnerships across the region, but also assisted in the recognition of the need to ensure that knowledge was captured, disseminated and used to support force-wide efforts to prevent and respond to modern slavery.409 If the formation of a centralised force anti-slavery
team represented a recognition of the need to increase capacity and capability on behalf of the force, the regional anti-trafficking network represented an acknowledgement of the need to integrate other organisations with potential to play a key role in addressing modern slavery across the region, particularly in the identification, recovery and support of victims.
The network in region one, like others across the UK, operates with no statutory footing, relying instead on voluntary commitment and recognition on behalf of the organisations themselves, that they have a role, or duty, to play in the prevention of and response to modern slavery. The earlier literature review found that while passing references to partnership were present in the national strategy and outputs from the IASC – there was little in the way of guidance informing their activities. The terms of reference document for region one’s anti-slavery network established its high-level remit as follows:
“The network is established to provide a strategic meeting framework on behalf of the statutory, non-statutory and third sector organisations in ‘region one’ who contribute to tackling human trafficking and modern slavery in all its forms. The network does not have a statutory role, nor does it have any oversight or governance of any policy, practice or procedure. Individual members are accountable only to their own organisations and are in no way committed to any joint initiatives for or on behalf of the network.” 410
409 Interview with a police Detective Constable, Region 1, 6th May 2015; Interview with a police
Detective Sergeant, Region 1, 6th May 2015.
410 Region 1 Anti-Trafficking Network – Terms of Reference, Personal Communication, 10th
161
A major underlying factor in the adoption of the region one model was the force's desire to close gaps in the provision of victim care and encourage the exchange of experiences and the development of effective practices, trends and patterns, including the identification of training needs and the implementation of information exchange protocols.411 These features were also evident across the
other regions studied. Despite its absence of statutory footing, the regional network acts as a central hub for localised divisional multi-agency partnerships, promoting the work from across the region and connecting the strategic priorities set by the by the regional network, cascading down from the PCC, through to localised activities undertaken by the partnerships.
The network was positioned as a central support structure, one aiming to instil a culture of voluntary participation and commitment from a number of partners and a mechanism through which other key activities such as the provision of training could be organised and effectively disseminated.412 In region one, the policing lead
for partnerships remarked that role of the work being done regionally, through the network, was being used to set a precedent for the creation of smaller networks across the region’s various policing districts:
“[The] hierarchy of the ‘region one’ anti-trafficking network was that the terms of reference and ongoing work should cascade down into the work being done across the five districts. Vice versa, the work being done across the five districts should, and would, feed-back up into the work of the regional network. The regional network acts as the central forum where everybody has a chair; local authorities, police, law enforcement, NCA, NGOs… and that is how all that should, and to some degree does, work in practice.” 413
411 Region 1 Anti-Trafficking network – Terms of Reference, Personal Communication, 10th
February 2015; Region 2 Organised Crime Task Force Modern slavery and Human Trafficking Terms of Reference, Personal Communication, October 2017; Region 5 Terms of Reference and Outcomes, Personal Communication, October 2017.
412 Comments from a local victim support NGO, Region 1 Focus Group, 24th January 2017. 413 Interview with a Police Detective Sergeant, Region 1, 7th September 2016.
162
Region one, one of the largest geographic policing areas in the UK, is built up of a number of separate policing districts. Central to the success of the partnership approach in the area was considered to be voluntary commitment to the modern slavery agenda from each of these districts, and the respective police contact points within them, and in engaging with other statutory, and non-statutory, organisations in their areas.414 In essence, the divisional police contact points
undertake responsibility for all criminal investigations in their areas, unless there is deemed to be a significant organised or cross border dimension to the crime from the investigation’s outset. In this regard slavery is managed no different from any other form of potentially serious and organised crime, with the central anti- slavery unit serving in an advisory capacity. Therefore, much of the progress made centrally within force has the potential to be undermined in the absence of diligence at the district level. To establish the “co-ordinated and established response” demanded by the force modern slavery policy, capacity building work began in 2015 across each of the force districts, laying the infrastructure needed to facilitate partnership working and the organisation of regional anti-slavery forums.415
While the requirement to form partnerships at district level was strongly encouraged within force, a significant degree of autonomy was left to district coordinators to define the exact processes and mechanisms through which to build these partnerships, how often they should meet, “what they do and how
they can help.” 416 While a sergeant from the central anti-slavery unit maintained
contact, and where possible physically attended meetings across all the districts to guide and share what approaches were being taken in other parts of the region, the approaches and results arising from them did tend to vary from area to area.417
And, while some areas progressed quicker than others, work was undertaken all
414 Comments from a representative of a local Community Safety Partnership, Region 1 Focus
Group, January 24th 2017.
415 Region 1 Force Human Trafficking Plans and Updates, Personal Communication, September
22nd 2015.
416 Region 1, District Y, Creating a District Forum, Personal Communication, 14th September 2015. 417 Region 1 Human Trafficking Team Report January to June 2015, Personal Communication, 2nd
163
across the regions to create district level slavery plans, establish terms of reference and key priorities, identify core partners and training needs, and put in place intelligence and information sharing processes.418
“Generally, each division has carried out some form of review of the human trafficking operations - investigations that they have undertaken to date. As a result of the review they have considered, who their key partners were during these periods. From this, work has been undertaken around lessons learned and good practice. This has sometimes been done stand alone, without partners, but often it has been done in consultation with them, in the form of an event hosted within the respective police division.” 419
One of the key reasons for investing individual areas within the region with a degree of autonomy and flexibility when setting up their partnership networks was because the exact makeup of each area, in terms of statutory roles; particularly within local authorities, was found to be different. Across the district regions, specific roles sat within different parts of different organisations, and in some cases, specific roles did not exist, or their responsibilities sat within other positions.
“…each local authority is structured differently. For instance, district x has nine directorates which cover the district X council. District Y has only about four or five so different roles and functions sit in different areas of the organisations [...] If the current approach was now to be changed and, for instance, it was dictated that the district lead was to come from a specific area – such as emergency planning. Not all districts have an
418 Region 1 Human Trafficking Team Report January to June 2015, Personal Communication, 2nd
June 2015.
419 Region 1 Police Human Trafficking Team Report January to June 2015, Personal
164
emergency planning officer so straight away the model starts to fall down.”
420
Despite these differences, a core set of organisations and roles were largely represented across each of the area groups. These were also found to be mostly representative of the organisations represented in the other regions studied. While these organisations represent only the core stakeholders, the principal agencies amongst them – namely those from the public and private sectors can reach out and engage more broadly if needed. Common participants include:
School safeguarding leads, Public health professionals, the ambulance service, child safeguarding, Adult safeguarding,
Clinical Commissioning Group Safeguarding leads,
a suitable individual to represent the interests of General
Practitioners (GPs), emergency planning,
Child Social Care,
School safeguarding lead, Public health,
Ambulance service, Child safeguarding, Adult safeguarding, Clinical Commissioning Group Safeguarding leads, victim and survivor support
NGO(s),
and the Salvation Army.
Once established these local area networks established divisional plans and issued terms of reference to the respective participating agencies. These plans include information such as training requirements and processes for the acquisition and handling of what became known as ‘soft intelligence’, and information on suspicious activity or potential victims or vulnerability coming from partner organisations to the police. In all areas, training was singled out as a specific priority in order to increase “candidate knowledge and awareness of the subject,
165
the surrounding processes and the role that many of the partners have in tackling the problem of human trafficking.” 421
Following the onset of formalised partnership working, region one, as a force area recorded one of the highest NRM referral returns in the country in 2016. Within the region itself it was believed that a lot of effective practice had been developed in regard to victim identification and NRM referrals.422 But, NRM referrals alone
cannot be considered a sole factor of success in this regard, especially as there is no clear causal link between forming partnerships and increasing referrals. Stepping back to look at region one more generally, there was a clear perception that the areas partnership work was delivering real tangible benefits to the organisations involved and ultimately to those at risk, or who were victims of modern slavery, and not necessarily something that was being replicated elsewhere in the UK. This was similarly reinforced by comments made during the HMIC inspection made during 2017 that suggested the region was an area of ‘best practice’ which other regions could follow.423
421 Region 1 Force Human Trafficking Plans and Updates, Personal Communication, 22nd
September 2015.
422 Comments from a UK Visas and Immigration representative, Region 1 Focus Group, 24th
January 2017.
423 Comments from a member of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, Region 1 Focus
166
7.3
STRUCTURE AND MEMBERSHIP
Whilst it is entirely possible that the modern slavery strategy and Modern Slavery Act 2015 provided the essential spark that put partnership working front and